Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-v9fdk Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-09T07:28:26.742Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Factors affecting myringoplasty success

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  06 February 2015

S D Carr ,
D R Strachan  and
C H Raine
S D Carr*
Affiliation:
Department of ENT and Head and Neck Surgery, Bradford Royal Infirmary, UK
D R Strachan
Affiliation:
Department of ENT and Head and Neck Surgery, Bradford Royal Infirmary, UK
C H Raine
Affiliation:
Department of ENT and Head and Neck Surgery, Bradford Royal Infirmary, UK
*
Address for correspondence: Mr S D Carr, Department of ENT and Head and Neck Surgery, Bradford Royal Infirmary, UK E-mail: simoncarr15@gmail.com
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Objective:

To identify factors that significantly influence myringoplasty success.

Methods:

A retrospective study was performed of all adults and children who underwent myringoplasty from January 2005 to January 2010 in a teaching hospital. Outcome measures were tympanic membrane perforation closure and air–bone gap closure to within 20 dB HL. The factors assessed were the surgeon grade, pre-operative condition of the ipsilateral and contralateral middle ears, perforation site, perforation size, graft material, and whether simultaneous cortical mastoidectomy was performed. Factors with statistically significant effects were determined by logistic regression analysis.

Results:

In the adult group, the perforation site significantly influenced tympanic membrane closure (p = 0.016): anterior (p = 0.008) and subtotal (p = 0.017) sites had the greatest influence. None of the factors proved to have a significant influence on tympanic membrane closure in the paediatric group.

Conclusion:

There was a significant association between perforation site and tympanic membrane perforation closure in adults. Anterior and subtotal perforations had a significantly reduced closure rate.

Keywords

MyringoplastyTympanic MembraneAdultChildHearing
Type
Main Articles
Information
The Journal of Laryngology & Otology , Volume 129 , Issue 1 , January 2015 , pp. 23 - 26
Copyright
Copyright © JLO (1984) Limited 2015 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Footnotes

Presented as a podium talk at the Otorhinolaryngological Research Society Spring Meeting, 18 March 2011, London, UK, and as a poster at the American Academy of Otolaryngology – Head and Neck Surgery Foundation Conference, 11–14 September 2011, San Francisco, California, USA

References

1Jurovitzki, I, Sade, J. Myringoplasty: long-term followup. Am J Otol 1988;9:52–5Google ScholarPubMed
2Vartiainen, E, Nuutinen, J. Success and pitfalls in myringoplasty: follow-up study of 404 cases. Am J Otol 1993;14:301–5Google ScholarPubMed
3Gersdorff, M, Garin, P, Decat, M, Juantegui, M. Myringoplasty: long-term results in adults and children. Am J Otol 1995;16:532–5Google Scholar
4Bajaj, Y, Bais, AS, Mukherjee, B. Tympanoplasty in children--a prospective study. J Laryngol Otol 1998;112:1147–9Google Scholar
5Kageyama-Escobar, AM, Rivera-Moreno, MA, Rivera-Mendez, A. Risk factors for myringoplasty failure [in Spanish]. Gac Med Mex 2001;137:209–20Google Scholar
6Carr, MM, Poje, CP, Nagy, ML, Pizzuto, MP, Brodsky, LS. Success rates in paediatric tympanoplasty. J Laryngol Otol 2001;30:199–202Google ScholarPubMed
7Dornhoffer, J. Cartilage tympanoplasty: indications, techniques, and outcomes in a 1,000-patient series. Laryngoscope 2003;113:1844–56CrossRefGoogle Scholar
8Fadl, FA. Outcome of type-1 tympanoplasty. Saudi Med J 2003;24:58–61Google ScholarPubMed
9Onal, K, Uguz, MZ, Kazikdas, KC, Gursoy, ST, Gokce, H. A multivariate analysis of otological, surgical and patient-related factors in determining success in myringoplasty. Clin Otolaryngol 2005;30:115–20CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
10Scally, CM, Allen, L, Kerr, AG. The anterior hitch method of tympanic membrane repair. Ear Nose Throat J 1996;75:244–7Google Scholar
11Applebaum, EL, Deutsch, EC. Fluorescein angiography of the tympanic membrane. Laryngoscope 1985;95:1054–8CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
12Frade Gonzalez, C, Castro Vilas, C, Cabanas Rodriguez, E, Elhendi, W, Vaamonde Lago, P, Labella Caballero, T. Prognostic factors influencing anatomic and functional outcome in myringoplasty [in Spanish]. Acta Otorrinolaringol Esp 2002;53:729–35Google Scholar
13Albera, R, Ferrero, V, Lacilla, M, Canale, A. Tympanic reperforation in myringoplasty: evaluation of prognostic factors. Ann Otol Rhinol Laryngol 2006;115:875–9Google Scholar
14Al-Ghamdi, SA. Tympanoplasty: Factors influencing surgical outcome. Ann Saud Med 1994;14:483–5Google Scholar
15Westerberg, J, Harder, H, Magnuson, B, Westerberg, L, Hyden, D. Ten-year myringoplasty series: does the cause of perforation affect the success rate? J Laryngol Otol 2011;125:126–32Google Scholar
16Caylan, R, Titiz, A, Falcioni, M, De Donato, G, Russo, A, Taibah, A et al. Myringoplasty in children: factors influencing surgical outcome. Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 1998;118:709–13Google Scholar
17Berger, G, Berger, S. Paediatric revision myringoplasty: outcomes and prospects. J Laryngol Otol 2002;116:690–4CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
18Yung, MW. Myringoplasty: hearing gain in relation to perforation site. J Laryngol Otol 1983;97:11–17Google Scholar
19Wasson, JD, Papdimitriou, CE, Pau, H. Myringoplasty: impact of perforation size on closure and audiological improvement. J Laryngol Otol 2009;123:973–7CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
20Jurado, FJA, Gil, JLM, Secall, MT, Vadillo, ED, Palau, EM, Novoa, MDM et al. Myringoplasty: auditory follow-up and study of prognostic factors [in Spanish]. Acta Otorrinolaringol Esp 2009;60:169–75Google Scholar
21Lee, P, Kelly, G, Mills, RP. Myringoplasty: does the size of the perforation matter? Clin Otolaryngol Allied Sci 2002;27:331–4Google Scholar
22Pfammatter, A, Novoa, E, Linder, T. Can myringoplasty close the air-bone gap? Otol Neurotol 2013;34:705–10Google Scholar
23Thiel, G, Mills, RP, Mills, N. Factors affecting hearing improvement following successful repair of the tympanic membrane. J Laryngol Otol 2013;127:349–53Google Scholar
24Mills, R, Thiel, G, Mills, N. Results of myringoplasty operations in active and inactive ears in adults. Laryngoscope 2013;123:2245–9Google Scholar
25Adkins, WY, White, B. Type I tympanoplasty: influencing factors. Laryngoscope 1984;94:916–18Google Scholar
26Albu, S, Trabalzini, F, Amadori, M. Usefulness of cortical mastoidectomy in myringoplasty. Otol Neurotol 2012;33:604–9Google Scholar
27McGrew, BM, Jackson, CG, Glasscock, ME 3rd. Impact of mastoidectomy on simple tympanic membrane perforation repair. Laryngoscope 2004;114:506–11CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
28Yoon, TH, Park, SK, Kim, JY, Pae, KH, Ahn, JH. Tympanoplasty, with or without mastoidectomy, is highly effective for treatment of chronic otitis media in children. Acta Otolaryngol Suppl 2007;558:44–8Google Scholar
29Jackler, RK, Schindler, RA. Myringoplasty with simple mastoidectomy: results in 82 consecutive patients. Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 1983;91:14–17Google Scholar
30Jackler, RK, Schindler, RA. Role of the mastoid in tympanic membrane reconstruction. Laryngoscope 1984;94:495–500CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
31Sckolnick, JS, Mantle, B, Li, J, Chi, DH. Pediatric myringoplasty: factors that affect success – a retrospective study. Laryngoscope 2008;118:723–9CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
32Kumar, S, Acharya, A, Hajihannas, E, Panagamuwa, C, McDermott, AL. Pediatric myringoplasty: definition of ‘success’ and factors affecting outcome. Otol Neurotol 2010;31:1417–20Google Scholar
33Knapik, M, Saliba, I. Pediatric myringoplasty: a study of factors affecting outcome. Int J Pediatr Otorhinolaryngol 2011;75:818–23CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed